Amendment Rules Research Articles

Criminal Investigation under Military Law

During an investigation, interviews with witnesses will often need to be supplemented by searches for and seizures of property connected with commission of the crimes being investigated. If a building to be searched is located in the United States and off a military installation, then it makes no difference whether a serviceman owns that building. To be legal, the search must be conducted on the same basis as if civilians alone were involved and if the results of the search were to be offered in evidence in a Federal civilian court. What this means is that, within the United States and its territories, a search warrant is usually needed. Under the Fourth Amendment and Federal Rule 41 of Criminal Procedure both Federal courts and State courts of record can issue such warrants if there is probable cause for the search and if the objects to be sought are specifically described in the warrant. Only certain types of objects can be searched for and seized under a search warrant. For instance, a warrant cannot be obtained to search for an object or document merely because it would be evidence showing that a had been committed and by whom. Instead, generally speaking a Federal search warrant is obtainable only to search for the tools of or the fruits of crime. In this context the word crime refers only to that which would be an offense under some Federal enactment, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice. An offense under State law is not included.

Institutional and Individual Participation under the SEC’s Shareholder Proposal Rule

TODAY'S UNPRECEDENTED CONCERN over shareholder solicitations of proxies in proxy contests for control of publicly held corporations and over shareholder solicitations for representation on their boards of directors makes especially timely inquiry into the other principal means by which shareholders may participate in corporate affairs. More specifically, what was the experience during 1954 and 1955 to date under the Securities and Exchange Commission's amended shareholder proposal rule, Rule X-14A-8? Again, is substantial progress being made under the amended shareholder proposal rule toward the objective of corporate or shareholder democracy?

The Amended Rules of the Permanent Court of International Justice

Various changes in the organization of the Permanent Court of International Justice, particularly in the arrangements for its sessions, were envisaged in the amendments to the Statute of the Court annexed to the Protocol for the Revision of the Statute, of September 14, 1929. This protocol failed to come into force in September, 1930, as planned. While it may yet come into force, that event may be postponed for several years. It would seem to require ratification by each of the forty-five states which have ratified the Protocol of Signature of December 16, 1920, as well as ratification by the United States of America. Only thirty-five states members of the League of Nations have now (May 1, 1931) ratified the protocol of September 14, 1929, and it may prove to be a difficult task to persuade the remaining eleven states to ratify promptly. Meanwhile, it has seemed desirable that the court itself should revise its rules in the direction of some of the changes which would have been effected by the amendments to the statute.